Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants
Identifieur interne : 000495 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000494; suivant : 000496Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants
Auteurs : Daniel Wismeijer ; Ronny Mans ; Michiel Van Genuchten ; Hajo A. ReijersSource :
- Clinical Oral Implants Research [ 0905-7161 ] ; 2014-10.
Abstract
The primary objective of this clinical study was to assess the patients' perception of the difference between an analogue impression approach on the one hand and an intra‐oral scan (IO scan) on the other when restoring implants in the non‐aesthetic zone. A second objective was to analyse the difference in time needed to perform these two procedures.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/clr.12234
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:0A50ACCE2E775F23709E2DD619CA37CA502788A7Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants</title><author><name sortKey="Wismeijer, Daniel" sort="Wismeijer, Daniel" uniqKey="Wismeijer D" first="Daniel" last="Wismeijer">Daniel Wismeijer</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral Function and Restorative Dentistry ACTA, Free University of Amsterdam, Research Institute Move, Amsterdam, The Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>:, Phd, DDSDepartment of Oral ImplantologyAnd Prosthetic DentistryGustav Mahlerlaan 30041081 LA AmsterdamThe NetherlandsTel.: +31 20 598 0412Fax: +31 20 598 0333e‐mail:</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: d.wismeijer@acta.nl</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Mans, Ronny" sort="Mans, Ronny" uniqKey="Mans R" first="Ronny" last="Mans">Ronny Mans</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Van Genuchten, Michiel" sort="Van Genuchten, Michiel" uniqKey="Van Genuchten M" first="Michiel" last="Van Genuchten">Michiel Van Genuchten</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>MTOnyx, Basel, Switzerland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Reijers, Hajo A" sort="Reijers, Hajo A" uniqKey="Reijers H" first="Hajo A." last="Reijers">Hajo A. Reijers</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Perceptive Software, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:0A50ACCE2E775F23709E2DD619CA37CA502788A7</idno><date when="2014" year="2014">2014</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/clr.12234</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/0A50ACCE2E775F23709E2DD619CA37CA502788A7/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000495</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000495</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants</title><author><name sortKey="Wismeijer, Daniel" sort="Wismeijer, Daniel" uniqKey="Wismeijer D" first="Daniel" last="Wismeijer">Daniel Wismeijer</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral Function and Restorative Dentistry ACTA, Free University of Amsterdam, Research Institute Move, Amsterdam, The Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>:, Phd, DDSDepartment of Oral ImplantologyAnd Prosthetic DentistryGustav Mahlerlaan 30041081 LA AmsterdamThe NetherlandsTel.: +31 20 598 0412Fax: +31 20 598 0333e‐mail:</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: d.wismeijer@acta.nl</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Mans, Ronny" sort="Mans, Ronny" uniqKey="Mans R" first="Ronny" last="Mans">Ronny Mans</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Van Genuchten, Michiel" sort="Van Genuchten, Michiel" uniqKey="Van Genuchten M" first="Michiel" last="Van Genuchten">Michiel Van Genuchten</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>MTOnyx, Basel, Switzerland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Reijers, Hajo A" sort="Reijers, Hajo A" uniqKey="Reijers H" first="Hajo A." last="Reijers">Hajo A. Reijers</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Perceptive Software, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH</title><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno><idno type="eISSN">1600-0501</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">25</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">10</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="1113">1113</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="1118">1118</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">6</biblScope><date type="published" when="2014-10">2014-10</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">The primary objective of this clinical study was to assess the patients' perception of the difference between an analogue impression approach on the one hand and an intra‐oral scan (IO scan) on the other when restoring implants in the non‐aesthetic zone. A second objective was to analyse the difference in time needed to perform these two procedures.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Daniel Wismeijer</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral Function and Restorative Dentistry ACTA, Free University of Amsterdam, Research Institute Move, Amsterdam, The Netherlands</json:string><json:string>:, Phd, DDSDepartment of Oral ImplantologyAnd Prosthetic DentistryGustav Mahlerlaan 30041081 LA AmsterdamThe NetherlandsTel.: +31 20 598 0412Fax: +31 20 598 0333e‐mail:</json:string><json:string>E-mail: d.wismeijer@acta.nl</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Ronny Mans</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Michiel van Genuchten</name><affiliations><json:string>MTOnyx, Basel, Switzerland</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Hajo A. Reijers</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands</json:string><json:string>Perceptive Software, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>digital dentistry</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>intraoral scanning</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>oral Implants</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>patient satisfaction</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>prosthetic dentistry</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>CLR12234</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-844X3B74-J</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>The primary objective of this clinical study was to assess the patients' perception of the difference between an analogue impression approach on the one hand and an intra‐oral scan (IO scan) on the other when restoring implants in the non‐aesthetic zone. A second objective was to analyse the difference in time needed to perform these two procedures.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>6.906</score><pdfWordCount>4222</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>26011</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>6</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595.276 x 782.362 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>57</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>351</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>5</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants</title><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>0905-7161</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1600-0501</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>CLR</json:string></publisherId><volume>25</volume><issue>10</issue><pages><first>1113</first><last>1118</last><total>6</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><subject><json:item><value>Original Article</value></json:item></subject></host><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-844X3B74-J</json:string></ark><publicationDate>2014</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2014</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/clr.12234</json:string></doi><id>0A50ACCE2E775F23709E2DD619CA37CA502788A7</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/0A50ACCE2E775F23709E2DD619CA37CA502788A7/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/0A50ACCE2E775F23709E2DD619CA37CA502788A7/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/0A50ACCE2E775F23709E2DD619CA37CA502788A7/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Wiley Publishing Ltd</publisher><availability><licence>© 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd</licence></availability><date type="published" when="2014-10"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="article" source="article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</note><note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants</title><author xml:id="author-0000" role="corresp"><persName><forename type="first">Daniel</forename><surname>Wismeijer</surname></persName><affiliation><orgName>Department of Oral Function and Restorative Dentistry ACTA</orgName><orgName>Free University of Amsterdam</orgName><orgName>Research Institute Move</orgName><address><settlement type="city">Amsterdam</settlement><country key="NL">The Netherlands</country></address></affiliation><affiliation>Corresponding author: Daniel Wismeijer, Phd, DDS Department of Oral Implantology And Prosthetic Dentistry Gustav Mahlerlaan 3004 1081 LA Amsterdam The Netherlands Tel.: +31 20 598 0412 Fax: +31 20 598 0333 e‐mail: d.wismeijer@acta.nl</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Ronny</forename><surname>Mans</surname></persName><affiliation><orgName>Department of Mathematics and Computer Science</orgName><orgName>Eindhoven University of Technology</orgName><address><settlement type="city">Eindhoven</settlement><country key="NL">The Netherlands</country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Michiel</forename><surname>Genuchten</surname></persName><affiliation><orgName>MTOnyx</orgName><address><settlement type="city">Basel</settlement><country key="CH">Switzerland</country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">Hajo A.</forename><surname>Reijers</surname></persName><affiliation><orgName>Department of Mathematics and Computer Science</orgName><orgName>Eindhoven University of Technology</orgName><address><settlement type="city">Eindhoven</settlement><country key="NL">The Netherlands</country></address></affiliation><affiliation><orgName>Perceptive Software</orgName><address><settlement type="city">Apeldoorn</settlement><country key="NL">The Netherlands</country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">0A50ACCE2E775F23709E2DD619CA37CA502788A7</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-844X3B74-J</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/clr.12234</idno><idno type="unit">CLR12234</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CLR.CLR12234.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH</title><idno type="pISSN">0905-7161</idno><idno type="eISSN">1600-0501</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/clr.2014.25.issue-10</idno><idno type="product">CLR</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">25</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">10</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="1113">1113</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="1118">1118</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">6</biblScope><date type="published" when="2014-10"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract style="main" xml:id="clr12234-abs-0001"><head>Abstract</head>
Objectives
<p>The primary objective of this clinical study was to assess the patients' perception of the difference between an analogue impression approach on the one hand and an intra‐oral scan (<hi rend="fc">IO</hi> scan) on the other when restoring implants in the non‐aesthetic zone. A second objective was to analyse the difference in time needed to perform these two procedures.</p>
Materials and methods
<p>Thirty consecutive patients who had received 41 implants (Straumann tissue level) in the non‐aesthetic zone in an implant‐based referral practice setting in the Netherlands. As they were to receive crown and or bridge work on the implants, in one session, the final impressions were taken with both an analogue technique and with an intraoral scan. Patients were also asked if, directly after the treatment was carried out, they would be prepared to fill out a questionnaire on their perception of both techniques. The time involved following these two procedures was also recorded.</p>
Results
<p>The preparatory activities of the treatment, the taste of the impression material and the overall preference of the patients were significantly in favour of the <hi rend="fc">IO</hi> scan. The bite registration, the scan head and gag reflex positively tended to the <hi rend="fc">IO</hi> scan, but none of these effects were significant. The overall time involved with the <hi rend="fc">IO</hi> scan was more negatively perceived than the analogue impression. Overall less time was involved when following the analogue impression technique than with the <hi rend="fc">IO</hi> scan.</p>
Conclusions
<p>The overall preference of the patients in our sample is significantly in favour of the approach using the <hi rend="fc">IO</hi> scan. This preference relates mainly to the differences between the compared approaches with respect to taste effects and their preparatory activities. The patients did perceive the duration of <hi rend="fc">IO</hi> scan more negatively than the analogue impression approach.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords><term xml:id="clr12234-kwd-0001">digital dentistry</term><term xml:id="clr12234-kwd-0002">intraoral scanning</term><term xml:id="clr12234-kwd-0003">oral Implants</term><term xml:id="clr12234-kwd-0004">patient satisfaction</term><term xml:id="clr12234-kwd-0005">prosthetic dentistry</term></keywords><keywords rend="articleCategory"><term>Original Article</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Original Articles</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component type="serialArticle" version="2.0" xml:id="clr12234" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</doi><issn type="print">0905-7161</issn><issn type="electronic">1600-0501</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="CLR"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title sort="CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH" type="main">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><title type="short">Clin. Oral Impl. Res.</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="100"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/clr.2014.25.issue-10</doi><copyright ownership="publisher">Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd</copyright><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="25">25</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue">10</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2014-10">October 2014</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" position="20" status="forIssue" type="article"><doi>10.1111/clr.12234</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="CLR12234"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count number="6" type="pageTotal"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="articleCategory">Original Article</title><title type="tocHeading1">Original Articles</title></titleGroup><copyright ownership="publisher">© 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd</copyright><eventGroup><event date="2013-07-03" type="manuscriptAccepted"></event><event agent="SPS" date="2013-07-22" type="xmlCreated"></event><event agent="SPS" date="2013-08-14" type="xmlCorrected"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.3.4 mode:FullText" date="2014-09-09"></event><event type="publishedOnlineEarlyUnpaginated" date="2013-08-14"></event><event type="firstOnline" date="2013-08-14"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2014-09-09"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.6.4 mode:FullText" date="2015-10-08"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst">1113</numbering><numbering type="pageLast">1118</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo><lineatedText><line><b>Corresponding author</b>:
</line><line><i>Daniel Wismeijer</i>, Phd, DDS</line><line>Department of Oral Implantology</line><line>And Prosthetic Dentistry</line><line>Gustav Mahlerlaan 3004</line><line>1081 LA Amsterdam</line><line>The Netherlands</line><line>Tel.: +31 20 598 0412</line><line>Fax: +31 20 598 0333</line><line>e‐mail: <email>d.wismeijer@acta.nl</email></line></lineatedText></correspondenceTo><selfCitationGroup><citation type="self" xml:id="clr12234-cit-1001"><author><familyName>Wismeijer</familyName> <givenNames>D</givenNames></author>, <author><familyName>Mans</familyName> <givenNames>R</givenNames></author>, <author><familyNamePrefix>van</familyNamePrefix> <familyName>Genuchten</familyName> <givenNames>M</givenNames></author>, <author><familyName>Reijers</familyName> <givenNames>HA</givenNames></author>. <articleTitle>Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants</articleTitle>. <journalTitle>Clin. Oral Impl. Res.</journalTitle> <vol>25</vol>, <pubYear year="2014">2014</pubYear>, <pageFirst>1113</pageFirst>–<pageLast>1118</pageLast> doi: <accessionId ref="info:doi/10.1111/clr.12234">10.1111/clr.12234</accessionId></citation></selfCitationGroup><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CLR.CLR12234.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><titleGroup><title type="main">Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants</title><title type="shortAuthors">Wismeijer et al</title></titleGroup><creators><creator affiliationRef="#clr12234-aff-0001" corresponding="yes" creatorRole="author" xml:id="clr12234-cr-0001"><personName><givenNames>Daniel</givenNames> <familyName>Wismeijer</familyName></personName></creator><creator affiliationRef="#clr12234-aff-0002" creatorRole="author" xml:id="clr12234-cr-0002"><personName><givenNames>Ronny</givenNames> <familyName>Mans</familyName></personName></creator><creator affiliationRef="#clr12234-aff-0003" creatorRole="author" xml:id="clr12234-cr-0003"><personName><givenNames>Michiel</givenNames> <familyNamePrefix>van</familyNamePrefix> <familyName>Genuchten</familyName></personName></creator><creator affiliationRef="#clr12234-aff-0002 #clr12234-aff-0004" creatorRole="author" xml:id="clr12234-cr-0004"><personName><givenNames>Hajo A.</givenNames> <familyName>Reijers</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation countryCode="NL" type="organization" xml:id="clr12234-aff-0001"><orgDiv>Department of Oral Function and Restorative Dentistry ACTA</orgDiv> <orgName>Free University of Amsterdam</orgName> <orgName>Research Institute Move</orgName> <address><city>Amsterdam</city> <country>The Netherlands</country></address></affiliation><affiliation countryCode="NL" type="organization" xml:id="clr12234-aff-0002"><orgDiv>Department of Mathematics and Computer Science</orgDiv> <orgName>Eindhoven University of Technology</orgName> <address><city>Eindhoven</city> <country>The Netherlands</country></address></affiliation><affiliation countryCode="CH" type="organization" xml:id="clr12234-aff-0003"><orgName>MTOnyx</orgName> <address><city>Basel</city> <country>Switzerland</country></address></affiliation><affiliation countryCode="NL" type="organization" xml:id="clr12234-aff-0004"><orgName>Perceptive Software</orgName> <address><city>Apeldoorn</city> <country>The Netherlands</country></address></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup type="author"><keyword xml:id="clr12234-kwd-0001">digital dentistry</keyword><keyword xml:id="clr12234-kwd-0002">intraoral scanning</keyword><keyword xml:id="clr12234-kwd-0003">oral Implants</keyword><keyword xml:id="clr12234-kwd-0004">patient satisfaction</keyword><keyword xml:id="clr12234-kwd-0005">prosthetic dentistry</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:id="clr12234-abs-0001"><title type="main">Abstract</title><section xml:id="clr12234-sec-0001"><title type="main">Objectives</title><p>The primary objective of this clinical study was to assess the patients' perception of the difference between an analogue impression approach on the one hand and an intra‐oral scan (<fc>IO</fc> scan) on the other when restoring implants in the non‐aesthetic zone. A second objective was to analyse the difference in time needed to perform these two procedures.</p></section><section xml:id="clr12234-sec-0002"><title type="main">Materials and methods</title><p>Thirty consecutive patients who had received 41 implants (Straumann tissue level) in the non‐aesthetic zone in an implant‐based referral practice setting in the Netherlands. As they were to receive crown and or bridge work on the implants, in one session, the final impressions were taken with both an analogue technique and with an intraoral scan. Patients were also asked if, directly after the treatment was carried out, they would be prepared to fill out a questionnaire on their perception of both techniques. The time involved following these two procedures was also recorded.</p></section><section xml:id="clr12234-sec-0003"><title type="main">Results</title><p>The preparatory activities of the treatment, the taste of the impression material and the overall preference of the patients were significantly in favour of the <fc>IO</fc> scan. The bite registration, the scan head and gag reflex positively tended to the <fc>IO</fc> scan, but none of these effects were significant. The overall time involved with the <fc>IO</fc> scan was more negatively perceived than the analogue impression. Overall less time was involved when following the analogue impression technique than with the <fc>IO</fc> scan.</p></section><section xml:id="clr12234-sec-0004"><title type="main">Conclusions</title><p>The overall preference of the patients in our sample is significantly in favour of the approach using the <fc>IO</fc> scan. This preference relates mainly to the differences between the compared approaches with respect to taste effects and their preparatory activities. The patients did perceive the duration of <fc>IO</fc> scan more negatively than the analogue impression approach.</p></section></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Daniel</namePart><namePart type="family">Wismeijer</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral Function and Restorative Dentistry ACTA, Free University of Amsterdam, Research Institute Move, Amsterdam, The Netherlands</affiliation><affiliation>:, Phd, DDSDepartment of Oral ImplantologyAnd Prosthetic DentistryGustav Mahlerlaan 30041081 LA AmsterdamThe NetherlandsTel.: +31 20 598 0412Fax: +31 20 598 0333e‐mail:</affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: d.wismeijer@acta.nl</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Ronny</namePart><namePart type="family">Mans</namePart><affiliation>Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Michiel</namePart><namePart type="family">van Genuchten</namePart><affiliation>MTOnyx, Basel, Switzerland</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Hajo A.</namePart><namePart type="family">Reijers</namePart><affiliation>Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands</affiliation><affiliation>Perceptive Software, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2014-10</dateIssued><dateCreated encoding="w3cdtf">2013-07-22</dateCreated><dateValid encoding="w3cdtf">2013-07-03</dateValid><edition>Wismeijer D, Mans R, van Genuchten M, Reijers HA. Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 25, 2014, 1113–1118 doi: 10.1111/clr.12234</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2014</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><abstract>The primary objective of this clinical study was to assess the patients' perception of the difference between an analogue impression approach on the one hand and an intra‐oral scan (IO scan) on the other when restoring implants in the non‐aesthetic zone. A second objective was to analyse the difference in time needed to perform these two procedures.</abstract><abstract>Thirty consecutive patients who had received 41 implants (Straumann tissue level) in the non‐aesthetic zone in an implant‐based referral practice setting in the Netherlands. As they were to receive crown and or bridge work on the implants, in one session, the final impressions were taken with both an analogue technique and with an intraoral scan. Patients were also asked if, directly after the treatment was carried out, they would be prepared to fill out a questionnaire on their perception of both techniques. The time involved following these two procedures was also recorded.</abstract><abstract>The preparatory activities of the treatment, the taste of the impression material and the overall preference of the patients were significantly in favour of the IO scan. The bite registration, the scan head and gag reflex positively tended to the IO scan, but none of these effects were significant. The overall time involved with the IO scan was more negatively perceived than the analogue impression. Overall less time was involved when following the analogue impression technique than with the IO scan.</abstract><abstract>The overall preference of the patients in our sample is significantly in favour of the approach using the IO scan. This preference relates mainly to the differences between the compared approaches with respect to taste effects and their preparatory activities. The patients did perceive the duration of IO scan more negatively than the analogue impression approach.</abstract><subject><genre>keywords</genre><topic>digital dentistry</topic><topic>intraoral scanning</topic><topic>oral Implants</topic><topic>patient satisfaction</topic><topic>prosthetic dentistry</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Clinical Oral Implants Research</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>Clin. Oral Impl. Res.</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><subject><genre>article-category</genre><topic>Original Article</topic></subject><identifier type="ISSN">0905-7161</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1600-0501</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">CLR</identifier><part><date>2014</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>25</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>10</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>1113</start><end>1118</end><total>6</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">0A50ACCE2E775F23709E2DD619CA37CA502788A7</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-844X3B74-J</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/clr.12234</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">CLR12234</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd© 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/0A50ACCE2E775F23709E2DD619CA37CA502788A7/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000495 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000495 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:0A50ACCE2E775F23709E2DD619CA37CA502788A7
|texte= Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |